This is exactly how every major vender and retailer operate. Had something fixed somewhere before? Refurbished parts.
----------
I work for Best Buy, I've been there a year now and our rapid exchange process always takes 3 days or less....
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Chinese Consumer Groups Focusing on Apple's Use of Reconditioned Parts for Warranty Repairs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This is exactly how every major vender and retailer operate. Had something fixed somewhere before? Refurbished parts.
----------
I work for Best Buy, I've been there a year now and our rapid exchange process always takes 3 days or less....
I've had a reconditioned iPhone 4S to replace a faulty one, couldn't tell the difference, why does it matter? It's not like Apple are replacing handsets with scratched up units.
As long as you receive a unit that's identical in spec and in new condition, who cares?
As long as you receive a unit that's identical in spec and in new condition, who cares?
I work for Best Buy, I've been there a year now and our rapid exchange process always takes 3 days or less....[/QUOTE]
He had Black Tie Protection and it took two weeks. He was given the option of a "loaner" but they wanted a $150 deposit and it was a cheap flip phone. It's good to hear that things have changed, but I would still rather walk out of an Apple store with a replacement phone the same day.
He had Black Tie Protection and it took two weeks. He was given the option of a "loaner" but they wanted a $150 deposit and it was a cheap flip phone. It's good to hear that things have changed, but I would still rather walk out of an Apple store with a replacement phone the same day.
I would too, and was that recently? I've been working there for a year now and our phone exchanges, barring paperwork issues, have been the only thing that runs like clockwork.
Also, things like deposits are 100% the discretion of that stores management.
Sorry about the double posts... technical issues here. 
----------
It's been a couple years now. It was whenever the first EVO came out.
----------
It's been a couple years now. It was whenever the first EVO came out.
Sorry about the double posts... technical issues here.
----------
It's been a couple years now. It was whenever the first EVO came out.
That explains a lot (besides that being a god awful phone that I deal with about 50 times a week).
The entire protection and warranty structure has been overhauled since then, and for good reason, what a way to drive clients away.
The key point is Apple makes its reuse policy known. If one does not like the practice s/he has the choice to not buy the product. Personally, I am not offended.
Why? Your trade-in isn't new. I'm sure you'd like to get a new one, but constantly throwing perfectly good referbished product into the scrap heap doesn't make financisl sense.
This is all about the definition of reconditioned being different for different folks.
When we do a mass production about 1% of the parts are initially rejected because the fit is not perfect the first time, or it is flagged for review before use in a shipping unit. The ultimate reject rate is low because every effort is made to use "bin" parts in shipping units after a review by someone with more experience than the lowest assembler.
Also when we get returns, some parts aren't worth saving or recycling, but some are, particularly value added parts. The fact it was previously owned for a moment or two does not matter. It was not "used" in the functional sense.
Apple has hardware that needs to go through a similar process to keep as much stuff out of landfills as possible. Not only because they try fairly hard to be ecological, but also becaus a part is simply an object, an asset, that if it can be used and still meet end user standards and needs, it should.
Rocketman
When we do a mass production about 1% of the parts are initially rejected because the fit is not perfect the first time, or it is flagged for review before use in a shipping unit. The ultimate reject rate is low because every effort is made to use "bin" parts in shipping units after a review by someone with more experience than the lowest assembler.
Also when we get returns, some parts aren't worth saving or recycling, but some are, particularly value added parts. The fact it was previously owned for a moment or two does not matter. It was not "used" in the functional sense.
Apple has hardware that needs to go through a similar process to keep as much stuff out of landfills as possible. Not only because they try fairly hard to be ecological, but also becaus a part is simply an object, an asset, that if it can be used and still meet end user standards and needs, it should.
Rocketman
Ok, what bothers me about this is that ALL the other companies do the same thing, so why pick on apple? When I worked in electronics, HP and Dell and all the others used refurb units and parts for repairs and replacements. Are these companies also being scrutinized by Chinese consumer groups??
I completely agree. Why should I get a refurbished one when my phone is a new one but unfortunately came defective. I have always hated the fact I don't get a new one. Since the original iphone, Iphone 2G, Iphone 3G and Iphone 3GS, all have failed me within the first few months. I have decided to stick to my old 3GS for the last 3 years and bypass buying the Iphone 4 and worse the Iphone 4S for the same reason.
----------
Will you feel the same if you get a lemon car? I wonder. I would not mind if they will give you an incentive if your phone is replaced with a refurbished one. I think that is a fair trade. Cheers!
All this is, and I mean ALL this is, is a way to get Apple to have to buy more brand new parts from its supply chain (China). Instead of using something that is 100% functional, and adhering to stated environmental standards, the Chinese govt wants more of Apples money its country.
That's it. That is all this is, and anything stated to the contrary, ESPECIALLY by the Chinese government, is B.S.
That's it. That is all this is, and anything stated to the contrary, ESPECIALLY by the Chinese government, is B.S.
I have little faith in Apple's refurbished products. Back in the day I had an iPod photo that broke under warranty and a blew threw 3 refurbished iPods until they finally agreed to give me a new one and upgraded me to a video. Never had any problems after that.
Look, Apple is not denying this...
A new part is a quick to pop into your computer as a refurbished part. Certainly the most rational thing is that this discussion has boiled down to whether or not a refurbished part in most cases can be as good as a new part. I'm glad people realize this.
But Apple and other companies are not arbitrary, romantic, or stupid - they use hard statistics to dictate their policies. And they speak with their policies. What they say is that new parts are expected to last for 3 years, but refurbished parts are only expected to last 90 days. They say that a refurbished computer isn't worth as much as a new computer, even when given a full 3 year warranty. Why would there be such an enormous contrast in policies if refurbished parts were no more likely to fail than new parts?
I agree that not every refurbished part will fail, (certainly physical parts like buttons and cases do well), but like the other poster, I've experienced an enormous amount of major failures right after that 90 day mark. And it certainly won't give a computer brand an impression of being of high quality. I still say, at LEAST give us the option... As far as the environment goes, I'd keep my old computer longer if I thought I could afford to maintain it. But the refurb parts keep failing and I don't get any discounts for it now that I'm out of warranty...
A new part is a quick to pop into your computer as a refurbished part. Certainly the most rational thing is that this discussion has boiled down to whether or not a refurbished part in most cases can be as good as a new part. I'm glad people realize this.
But Apple and other companies are not arbitrary, romantic, or stupid - they use hard statistics to dictate their policies. And they speak with their policies. What they say is that new parts are expected to last for 3 years, but refurbished parts are only expected to last 90 days. They say that a refurbished computer isn't worth as much as a new computer, even when given a full 3 year warranty. Why would there be such an enormous contrast in policies if refurbished parts were no more likely to fail than new parts?
I agree that not every refurbished part will fail, (certainly physical parts like buttons and cases do well), but like the other poster, I've experienced an enormous amount of major failures right after that 90 day mark. And it certainly won't give a computer brand an impression of being of high quality. I still say, at LEAST give us the option... As far as the environment goes, I'd keep my old computer longer if I thought I could afford to maintain it. But the refurb parts keep failing and I don't get any discounts for it now that I'm out of warranty...